USPTO Patents Application 09766382

United States Patent and Trademark Office

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO.

FILING DATE

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.

CONFIRMATION NO.

09/766,382

01/19/2001

Robert Betros

DISCI 100

7353

25548 7590 06/22/2004

MARK M. TAKAHASHI
GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH, LLP
4365 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, SUITE 1 100
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-2133

EXAMINER

BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

ART UNIT

PAPER NUMBER

2155

DATE MAILED: 06/22/2004

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)

Office Action Summary

Application No.

09/766,382

Applicant(s) /

BETROS ET AL

cxorninur

Benjamin R Bruckart

Art Unit

2155

- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -

Period for Reply

A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) FROM
THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.

- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1 .136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.

- If the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a reply within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days will be considered timely,

• If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.

- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
earned patent term adjustment See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).

Status

1 )H3 Responsive to communication(s) filed on 19 January 2001 .
2a)D This action is FINAL. 2b)[3 This action is non-final.

3) D Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is

closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.

Disposition of Claims

4) S Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.

4a) Of the above claim(s) is/are withdrawn from consideration.

5) D Claim(s) is/are allowed.

6) S Claim(s) 7-20 is/are rejected.

7) D Claim(s) is/are objected to.

8) D Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.

Application Papers

9) H The specification is objected to by the Examiner.

10) D The drawing(s) filed on is/are: a)D accepted or b)D objected to by the Examiner.

Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).

1 1) D The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.

Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119

12) D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 1 1 9(a)-(d) or (f).
a)D All b)D Some * c)D None of:

1 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.

2. D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. .

3. D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage

application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.

Attach ment(s)

1 ) 13 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)

2) O Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)

3) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08)

Paper No(s)/Mail Date .

4) [U Interview Summary (PTO-413)

Paper No(s)/Mail Date. .

5) □ Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-1 52)

6) □ Other: .

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTOL-326 (Rev. 1-04)

Office Action Summary

Part of Paper No./Mail Date 4

Application/Control Number: 09/766,382
Art Unit: 2155

Page 2

Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.

Specification

The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:

Page 6, first paragraph reference to an application, the number is blank and
Page 7, third paragraph reference to an application, the number is blank.

Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 1 12:

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter, which the applicant regards as his invention.

Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention.

Claim 20 recites the limitation "the web browser" on page 20, line 13. There is
insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:

Application/Control Number; 09/766,382
Art Unit: 2155

Page 3

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted
on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant
for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 35 1 (a) shall
have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the
international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such
treaty in the English language.

Claim 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
anticipated by U.S. Patent No 6,192,394 by Gutfreund et al.

Regarding claim 1, a system for collaborative processing with distributed applications
(Gutfreund: col. 2, lines 11-22; col. 5, lines 28-43), comprising:

at least one application context in which an application is executed (Gutfreund:
col. 2, lines 15-22), the context including an application CGI for managing the
application (Gutfreund: col. 5, lines 60-67; col. 6, lines 39-55), and a communication
interface on which application data is communicated as messages (Gutfreund: col. 5,
lines 5-9; TCP/IP connection); and

a messaging bus configured to communicate the messages for processing by the
application (Gutfreund: col. 2, lines 2, line 15; message forwarding procedure; col. 6,
lines 39-55; collaboration server passes the message to the dispatcher).

Regarding claim 2, the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one remote
application that communicates messages to the application via the messaging bus
(Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 10-16; col. 3, lines 65- col. 4, line 28; client system).

Regarding claim 17, the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one remote application
generates presentation data that is readable by another application (Gutfreund: col. 5,
lines 36-38; users to enter a set of scheduled events to calendar application; col. 4, lines
39-53).

Regarding claim 18, the system of 17, wherein the presentation data is in a format that is
readable by a web browser (Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 19-21).

Application/Control Number: 09/766,382
Art Unit: 2155

Page 4

Regarding claim 19, the system of claim 18, wherein the format of the presentation data
is in HTML (Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 52-55).

Regarding claim 20, the system of claim 17, wherein the web browser is configured to
read the presentation data (Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 19-21, 52-55).

Regarding claim 3, the system of claim 1, further comprising a web server in
communication with the application CGI (Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 16-21; col. 6, lines 39-
55).

Regarding claim 4, the system of claim 3, wherein the application context includes an
administration CGI in communication between the web server and the application CGI
for receiving information about the application and providing a document for
transmission by the web server (Gutfreund: col. 5, lines 60-67; col. 6, lines 39-55;
dispatcher).

Regarding claim 10, the system of claim 1, wherein each application is configured to
publish and subscribe message data with other applications via the messaging bus
(Gutfreund: col 5, lines 28-43).

Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 1, wherein the messaging bus includes a filter
for filtering the message data (Gutfreund: col. 5, lines 34-36; message filtering
application).

Regarding claim 13, the system of claim 12, wherein the filter is configured to filter
messages according to a filter criteria executed by each application (Gutfreund: col. 7,
lines 25-32).

Application/Control Number: 09/766,382
Art Unit: 2155

Page 5

Regarding claim 6, the system of claim 1, further comprising a messaging bus extension
adapted for maintaining direct socket connections between the messaging bus and remote
applications (Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 65- col. 4, line 28).

Regarding claim 7, the system of claim 6, wherein the messaging bus extension includes
a multiplexer for multiplexing one or more direct socket connections to the messaging
bus (Gutfreund: col. 2, lines 1 1-22; users each making connections means many
connections at once in a collaborative system chat; col. 3, lines 20-40, shows 2 specific
clients; col. 7, lines 18-32; inter-user messages, user input respond to invitation).

Regarding claim 1 1, the system of claim 6, wherein the messaging bus extension is
configured to publish and subscribe message data between applications (Gutfreund: col
5, lines 28-43).

Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S. C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being anticipated by U.S.
Patent No 6,192,394 by Gutfreund et al in view of U.S, Patent No. 6,643,683 by
Drumm et al.

Regarding claim 14,

The Gutfreund reference teaches the system of claim 4, wherein an administration
GGI in communication between a web server and the application CGI.

The Gutfreund reference does not explicitly teach formatting the data.

Application/Control Number: 09/766,382
Art Unit: 2155

Page 6

The Drumm reference teaches an administration CGI is configured to format
application data retrieved from the application through the application CGI into
presentation data that is readable by another application (Drumm: col. 6, lines 27-49).

The Drumm reference further teaches the CGI reformats the response in a format
that is suitable for processing by the application server program (Drumm: col. 6, lines 35-
36).

Therefore it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of
ordinary skill in the art to create the administration CGI in communication between a web
server and the application as taught by Gutfreund while formatting data into presentable
data that is readable by another application as taught by Drumm in order to process the
request by another application.

Claims 15-16 are rejected under the same rationale given above. In the rejections
set fourth, the examiner will address the additional limitations and point to the relevant
teachings of Gutfreund et al and Drumm et al.

Regarding claim 15, the system of claim 14, wherein the presentation data is in a format
that is readable by a web browser (Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 19-21).

Regarding claim 16, the system of claim 14, wherein the format of the presentation data
is in HTML (Gutfreund: col. 3, lines 52-55).

Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being anticipated by U.S.
Patent No 6,192,394 by Gutfreund et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,796 by
Cianfrocca et al.

Regarding claim 5,

The Gutfreund reference teaches the system of claim 1 with an application CGI.

The Gutfreund reference does not explicitly state a gateway CGI.

The Cianfrocca reference teaches a gateway context including a gateway CGI
configured for maintaining two-way asynchronous communication between the
messaging bus and a remote application through a firewall (Cianfrocca: col. 19, lines 5-

Application/Control Number: 09/766,382
Art Unit: 2155

Page 7

50; tempest manager runs cgi keeping connections alive through the firewall; col. 2, lines
47-51).

The Cianfrocca reference further teaches the gateway running cgi can
substantially reduce the load on the firewall, reducing tcp connections, and overhead
(Cianfrocca: col. 19, lines 13-26).

Therefore it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of
ordinary skill in the art to create the web server with application CGI as taught by
Gutfreund while using a gateway context CGI maintaining two-way asynchronous
communication as taught by Cianfrocca in order to reduce the load on the firewall, reduce
tcp connections, and reduce overhead.

Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being anticipated by
U.S. Patent No 6,192,394 by Gutfreund et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,426,637 by
Derby et al.

Regarding claim 8,

The Gutfreund reference teaches the system of claim 1 where a web server
communicates with applications CGI.

The Gutfreund reference does not explicitly mention other remote buses but does
mention a second server system in which a client connects to (Gutfreund: col 3, lines 34-
38).

The Derby reference teaches a messaging bus is configured to communicate with
one or more other messaging busses, and wherein each other messaging bus is resident on
a remote host (Derby: col. 4, lines 22-31; messaging busses are the LANs).

The Derby reference further teaches a system with reduced overhead that
interconnects networks to transmitting data over long distances with speeds equal to local
distances (Derby: col. 2, lines 8-14).

Therefore it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of
ordinary skill in the art to create the web server that communicates with applications with
CGI as taught by Gutfreund while employing messaging busses connected together as

Application/Control Number: 09/766,382

Art Unit: 2155

taught by Derby in order to transmitting data over long distances with speeds equal to
local distances (Derby: col. 2, lines 8-14).

Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale given above. In the rejections set
fourth, the examiner will address the additional limitations and point to the relevant
teachings of Gutfreund et al and Derby et al.

Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 8, wherein the messaging bus is configured to
communicate according to a multicast protocol (Derby: col. 14, lines 34-56).

Conclusion

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Benjamin R Bruckart whose telephone number is (703)
305-0324. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:30 PM with every other
Friday off

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Hosain Alam can be reached on (703) 308-6662. The fax phone numbers for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for
regular communications and After Final communications.

Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or
proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-
0324.

Application/Control Number: 09/766,382 Page 9

Art Unit: 2155

Benjamin R Bruckart
Examiner

Art IW. 2155 ^

June 18, 2004

KOSAINALAM
SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER